Categories

Meta

Nov 16

19

In January 2013, David Cameron announced that a referendum would be held that would give the people a simple vote to either leave the EU or stay within it. On June 23rd 2016, the public surprisingly voted in favour of leaving the EU, having achieved a majority of 51.89% after a divisive campaign that concluded with the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron quit politics completely soon after with his reputation in tatters. Straight into the lucrative private sector – poor him and his cohort, Osborne.

Whether you agree that the question should ever have been posed at all, that only a simple majority was enough, or that the alternative should have been set out (rather than being a simple blank canvas) – these are the facts. Parliament agreed to pose the question, agreed the mechanics and agreed on the question itself. They had their say. They thought they’d win. They gambled. They lost.

This blog doesn’t cover whether we should or should not leave or what any damage could be but is concerned with the consequence of ignoring the voice of the majority of people within the UK and stopping the submission of Article 50, the mechanism to leave the EU, by any of the nefarious means currently in circulation – circulated by the political and business elite for whom staying serves their own interest or opinion.

The recent US election returned a candidate that mirrors the Brexit result – the surprise and the reasoning. People voted for change. They’re fed up with the elite and the political groups who swirl around Westminster and Washington churning out more and more of the same – apparently all concerned with self-interest. It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump being returned as President Elect in any other time, other than when the majority of people have had enough. The Democrat candidate was a perfect example of “more of the same”, hints of corruption and the continuation of powerful family dynasties. Another Clinton, another Bush, another Obama (to come in 2020). The public said “no” and the leader of the free world is now someone perfectly capable of jeopardising world peace. If you think differently, you’re not informed. They wanted change that badly.

For Brexit, the “in” campaign had two Oxford graduates that have never had a job or money problems, telling the people what was good for them, threatening them with tax rises and war – all with a sense of arrogance that they couldn’t lose. They did. They can now take up private work to advise firms how best to relocate to Frankfurt and Paris from London. They won’t go hungry.

The public had seen enough. Even the “out” campaign had posh elitists behaving badly, lying, exaggerating and playing on fears. Having won, they turned on themselves and left a Prime Minister in charge that appeared to want “in” but had a low enough profile to be suspected of keeping quiet so that she could hoover up the big job. The public don’t vote for a Prime Minister in General Elections, but for their local MP. A majority of MPs allows the naming of a PM – that’s how it works. However, given the situation, she lacks credibility and has walked through Number 10’s back door. To be a leader in a Brexit country, she really should win an election, a mandate.

So, now we face an uncertain future, which is very damaging in many ways – but the public DID vote for this. The PM says she will not reveal details of the negotiation in public or the tactics for that plan – and on this, she’s absolutely right to say that. It’s absurd to reveal your hand towards your opponent if you want the right result. Would you negotiate for a second-hand car by saying, “I’ll offer you £5,000 but am prepared to go up to £6,000.” No. Did Churchill stand up in Parliament and tell everyone that he’d launch an attack to act as a diversion whilst preparing the real attack elsewhere? Of course not.

Fast forward your imaginations 300 years and consider a scenario. Imagine that your 300 year forward relative read that large groups of people struggling with globalisation voted to remove itself from the European Union that was beset by administrative red tape and soft corruption. The European Union’s early years involved bundling much poorer states into a large union that naturally lowered standards of the participants’ wealthier states, as the richer states had to contribute towards their new brothers. The people didn’t like that. You continue reading and see that the elitist rulers of that state, known at the time as the United Kingdom, reversed the democratic will of the people with political means that resulted in civil disorder and the eventual split of that union into a number of states that are now part of the United States of Europe. You would know them as Londonia, South England, North England, Scotland, Wales and North East Ireland. All but Londonia are the economical equivalent to Romania and Lithuania. Does it sound absurd? Does it sound familiar? The people rising up to an elite apparently consumed with self-interest?

History does show that the will of the people cannot be ignored and that when it is, it is incredibly destabilising and the cause of war and suffering. Politicians are not listening to the people that elected them. I hear politicians saying that they should have their say on Brexit – but they did – on June 23rd 2016 along with everyone else. They sit in their ivory towers and think that they know better, that their vote somehow means more. It doesn’t. History shows people like this hanging from beams or separated from their heads. Together we’re stronger – division doesn’t work. It allows bad people to rise up and take power. Beware France. Beware USA. Give it a bit of time and beware UK.